6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Pernik.
7.  Agricultural lands owned by the applicant’s father and grandfather were collectivised after 1945.
8.  Following the entry into force of the Agricultural Land Act (see paragraph 26 below), on 22 February 1992 the applicant’s father sought to recover fifteen plots formerly owned by him in the area of the village of Kasilag totalling 39,650 square metres. In two decisions adopted on 16 May 1996 the Radomir Agricultural Land Commission (“the land commission”) restored to him several plots totalling 21,755 square metres, some in their old boundaries and the remainder through a land redistribution plan which was to be adopted later.
9.  On 28 February 1992, acting on behalf of the applicant’s grandfather’s heirs, the applicant’s father sought to recover another thirty‑seven plots formerly owned by the applicant’s grandfather, also in the area of Kasilag, totalling 175,000 square metres. The applicant’s father was entitled to one-seventh of the applicant’s grandfather’s property. In two decisions also dated 16 May 1996 the land commission restored to the heirs a number of plots totalling 107,500 square metres, some in their old boundaries and the remainder through the land redistribution plan.
10.  The land redistribution plan for the area of Kasilag was published on 18 June 1996. Under that plan the applicant’s father and the heirs of the applicant’s grandfather received most of the plots detailed in the above‑mentioned decisions of 16 May 1996.
11.  On 26 November 1997 the applicant’s father, acting on his own behalf and on behalf of the applicant’s grandfather’s heirs, challenged the plan, arguing that they could have been given additional plots, including some of the plots in respect of which the land commission had refused restitution, and that the land that had been allocated to them was not of good quality. In two decisions of 19 January 1998 the land commission refused to amend the plan. On 29 July 1998 the applicant’s father sought judicial review.
12.  Despite the pending judicial review proceedings, on 27 March 2000 the land commission adopted two decisions whereby it decided that the applicant’s father was to receive municipally-owned land or bonds as compensation in lieu of restitution for 11,888 square metres of land. In addition, the heirs of the applicant’s grandfather were to receive compensation for 16,425 square metres of land.
13.  On 5 July 2002 the Pernik Regional Court gave a judgment in the judicial review proceedings. It found that the decisions of 19 January 1998 were null and void because they had not been issued in accordance with the relevant procedure, and it remitted the case to the land commission for re‑examination.
14.  Upon an appeal by the applicant, on 13 December 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed that judgment in so far as the case had been remitted to the land commission, and instructed the Regional Court to examine the merits of the applicant’s father’s objections to the land redistribution plan.
15.  In a new judgment of 5 July 2004 the Pernik Regional Court found that the land redistribution plan for Kasilag could be amended so that the applicant’s father’s objections could be satisfied. Accordingly, the court amended the plan and allotted to the applicant’s father a plot of 14,888 square metres, and to the heirs of the applicant’s grandfather another plot of 37,779 square metres.
16.  On 12 July 2004 that judgment was served on the Radomir Agriculture and Forestry Department (formerly the Radomir Agricultural Land Commission) and the Radomir municipality. It was served on the applicant’s father on 21 July 2004. The parties were informed that they could appeal against it within fourteen days of the dates of the respective notifications. No appeals were filed within the relevant time‑limits.
17.  As the Pernik Regional Court had failed to award costs, on 29 July 2004 the applicant’s father requested that the judgment of 5 July 2004 be supplemented to take account of this, as provided for in Article 192 of the 1952 Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 34 below).
18.  The applicant’s father passed away on 7 August 2004. His heirs – the applicant and the latter’s mother and sister – continued the proceedings in his stead. Later, it transpired that the applicant’s father had left a will bequeathing all his property to the applicant.
19.  On 12 August 2004 the Pernik Regional Court examined and allowed the applicant’s father’s request concerning costs and awarded to his heirs 322 Bulgarian levs (BGN).
20.  On 19 August 2004 that decision was served on the Radomir Agriculture and Forestry Department.
21.  On 20 August 2004 the Radomir Agriculture and Forestry Department filed with the Supreme Administrative Court an appeal in which it challenged both the Regional Court’s decision concerning costs and the decision on the merits given on 5 July 2004.
22.  The applicant and his mother and sister also appealed against the decision of 12 August 2004, claiming a higher award for costs.
23.  The Supreme Administrative Court held a hearing on 14 February 2005. According to the record of the hearing, the applicant’s representative said:
“It was not indicated in the [Agriculture and Forestry Department’s] appeal that any other decision of the Regional Court, apart from the one concerning costs, was being challenged. The judgment has become final. I maintain my clients’ appeal in respect of the award for costs and therefore ask [the Supreme Administrative Court] to allow it and award us the remainder.”
24.  In a judgment of 2 March 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the Agriculture and Forestry Department’s appeal, without commenting on its admissibility or the objection raised by the applicant’s representative, and quashed the Pernik Regional Court’s judgment of 5 July 2004. Deciding on the merits of the case, it found that there were no grounds to amend the land redistribution plan and allocate new plots to the applicant’s father and the heirs of the applicant’s grandfather.
25.  It is unclear what the developments in the restitution procedure were after the above‑mentioned judgment, and in particular whether the applicant and the remaining heirs of his grandfather received any compensation, as per the land commission’s decisions of 27 March 2000 (see paragraph 12 above) or any subsequent decisions.